50 watts vs 100 watt cob

CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
mauricem00 said:
seems like the whole COB crowd is behind on lighting technology. a large number of small LEDs would give much more uniform coverage and the new 561 strip lights can produce 165LPW and operate without heat sinks at 700ma. all they need is a simple wood frame to hold them and a little soldering to connect them.https://www.digikey.com/products/en?s=55345&v=976 these would work as well as quantum boards at a much lower cost and without heavy heat sinks and frames to hold them they would be a lot lighter
Click to expand...
same tech in all 3 you listed - similar efficacy per $/watt

obviously the more legwork you put into a DIY the lower the cost will be.
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
im4satori said:
yes but if you've got a 30" tall plant that has some stretch or isnt super thick with foliage id still consider light intensity diminishing at further distances

assuming your canopy isnt so thick and you have the option to get light thru the plant .. how deep will the led push or at what rate does it diminish by distance

not to say its a fair comparison but more as an example;
a 1000 watt hps will push light deeper into the plant than a 400 watt hps

so would the same rules apply to the wattage on an LED between a 50 watt and a 100 watt
Click to expand...
Yep that's called the law of the inverse square, you want as powerful as an initial value you can get. The more the light gets spread out the less intensity the light has and the closer you will need to keep it.

It's the main reason warehouse grows use DE HPS lights.
 
im4satori

im4satori

Well-Known Member
Yodaweed said:
Yep that's called the law of the inverse square, you want as powerful as an initial value you can get. The more the light gets spread out the less intensity the light has and the closer you will need to keep it.

It's the main reason warehouse grows use DE HPS lights.
Click to expand...
ok so then wouldn't it make sense that 100 watt led would be better for a taller grow and a 50 watt led for a shorter grow like a scrog or sog when comparing equal finished watts on a fixture
 
im4satori

im4satori

Well-Known Member
but I guess theres also the argument that have a better light spread might be more equal to what youd expect from increased yields or reduced wattage needs that a light mover would provide

if that makes sense
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
im4satori said:
yes but if you've got a 30" tall plant that has some stretch or isnt super thick with foliage id still consider light intensity diminishing at further distances

assuming your canopy isnt so thick and you have the option to get light thru the plant .. how deep will the led push or at what rate does it diminish by distance

not to say its a fair comparison but more as an example;
a 1000 watt hps will push light deeper into the plant than a 400 watt hps

so would the same rules apply to the wattage on an LED between a 50 watt and a 100 watt
Click to expand...
Not really, because LED lights are usually spread apart. The inverse square law applies best to a point source of light; when there are several sources spread out, they tend to reinforce one another, increasing the effectiveness at longer distances without being too strong up close.

Best of both worlds!
 
Yodaweed

Yodaweed

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Not really, because LED lights are usually spread apart. The inverse square law applies best to a point source of light; when there are several sources spread out, they tend to reinforce one another, increasing the effectiveness at longer distances without being too strong up close.

Best of both worlds!
Click to expand...
That's not right at all, you are making stuff up to try to make LEDs look better.

Honestly this is what's wrong with this section, it's full of misinformation and straight up lies in an attempt to sell LEDs.
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
I've got an earlier Timber fixture that uses 4 Cree CXB 3590s driven at 100 watts each...so it's not a contender in the efficiency area, and it has a bunch of fans to cool it...It just looks sexy and grows cannabis. It was kind of loosely modeled after an Optic fixture -which used to be popular lights and then suddenly *POOF!* no one mentions them, now. It's such fleeting technology, it seems! Designs and applications have changed and advanced in just the couple years I've owned my Timber fixture - which still works just fine....so I'll continue to use it and wait for a little more time to pass and see what develops with all these new Quantum Board designs and which will end up as the new cream of the crop. I'd like to see a Quantum Board fixture that models itself after the Apache Tech AT600 -except better (no fans, more efficient and all that techy stuff) -AND MUCH CHEAPER than the Apache Tech!!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
tstick said:
I've got an earlier Timber fixture that uses 4 Cree CXB 3590s driven at 100 watts each...so it's not a contender in the efficiency area, and it has a bunch of fans to cool it...It just looks sexy and grows cannabis. It was kind of loosely modeled after an Optic fixture -which used to be popular lights and then suddenly *POOF!* no one mentions them, now. It's such fleeting technology, it seems! Designs and applications have changed and advanced in just the couple years I've owned my Timber fixture - which still works just fine....so I'll continue to use it and wait for a little more time to pass and see what develops with all these new Quantum Board designs and which will end up as the new cream of the crop. I'd like to see a Quantum Board fixture that models itself after the Apache Tech AT600 -except better (no fans, more efficient and all that techy stuff) -AND MUCH CHEAPER than the Apache Tech!!
Click to expand...
I have a bunch of 'obsolete' CXB3590 based fixtures that also continue to grow plants just as well as they did the day they were new.

Strange, isn't it? :bigjoint:
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
great chip in its day but its not first choice based on cost alone

it performs below the $17 luminus, $20-$22 citi 1818 and $23 vero29D so the conversation kinda ends there

in its same budget the ~$35 chips from vero citi and luminus are way above it and can be run out to 200-300W each
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
CobKits said:
great chip in its day but its not first choice based on cost alone

it performs below the $17 luminus, $20-$22 citi 1818 and $23 vero29D so the conversation kinda ends there

in its same budget the ~$35 chips from vero citi and luminus are way above it and can be run out to 200-300W each
Click to expand...
Thank you, Sir. I knew they were yesterday's news, I just didn't know what specific chips had superceded them.
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
again theyre not "bad". esp at low currents theyre within a few percent of the best chips on the market

its not that anybody got "ripped off" by buying them, they just paid the price for early adoption (and hopefully recovered that many times over in that time)

people bug me to upgrade all the time, i wouldnt be putting anything above a CXA3070 out of commission for a few more years personally.
 
V

vertnugs

Well-Known Member
Does spacing change with wattage?



50 watts per square foot is a basic rule of thumb so to speak.If one was to run their cob at less than the 50 watts can/should they place the cobs closer together?Or will it not make any difference?
 
tstick

tstick

Well-Known Member
CobKits said:
its not that anybody got "ripped off" by buying them, they just paid the price for early adoption (and hopefully recovered that many times over in that time)
Click to expand...
This is SO very important to realize....and also why I have decided to sit back for another run or two with my "old" technology and see how these new things that are just coming out now, perform.... and wait for the price to go way, WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYyyy down -when things become as "common" as screw-in lightbulbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top